About your Search

20130211
20130211
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)
. on their face i don't expect the senate to reject mr. brennan for cia chief, and despite mr. hagel's troubles in the confirmation hearing, i don't expect he will be blocked as a matter of substance or his performance in the hearings. but it is true that if a couple of senators decide to hold things up because they want more answers, it gives the administration a choice. it can either go to bat against the republicans and say they're being unreasonable, they're being political, they need to back down, or they could make a decision we just want to get this thing through, let's try to give them enough information to satisfy them and get it over with. jon: a mouthpiece for the administration in this situation said these are critical national security positions, and individual members -- meaning senators -- shouldn't play politics with their nominations. but isn't that what happens at every nomination, the senators trot out their list of wants, you know, information wise from the administration and use some leverage? >> yes, i mean -- well, jon, that's what advise and consent ultimately means. it
in benghazi. >> i don't think we should allow brennan to go forward for the cia directorship, hagel to be confirmed as secretary of defense until the white house gives us an accounting, did the president ever pick up the phone and call anyone in the libyan government to help these folks? what did the president do? yes, i'm going to ask my colleagues just like they did with john bolton, joe biden said, no confirmation without information. no confirmation without information. >> you are saying that you are going to block the nominations -- you're going to block them from coming to a vote until you get an answer? >> yes. >> now, john mccain has already think that he doesn't think republicans ought to filibuster this. what will you do? you're just going to put a hold on it? >> yeah, i'm not filibustering. this is a national security failure of monumental proportions, and i'm not going to stop until we get to the bottom of it. >> first of all, i'm shocked. you know, lindsey graham doesn't usually like getting in front of a camera and going on the sunday talk shows. so i'm shocked that li
republican senator chuck hagel still has hurdles to jump before becoming the country's next defense secretary. (music throughout) why turbo? trust us. it's just better to be in front. the sonata turbo. from hyundai. >>> there's a job you'd think would have support from basically everyone. it's the job of the secretary of defense. it's supposed to be a nonpartisan position in charge the largest arguably most important segment of the government. but that's far from the case for the president's nominee chuck hagel. joining us now is our chief political analyst gloria borger. carl levin said there will be a vote in the committee tomorrow. is this train leaving the station? >> yeah, i think the train is leaving the station. he wants to have a vote quickly. you have senator lindsey graham, republican, saying that he's going to put a hold on this nomination till he gets some more answers from the administration about the attack on the u.s. mission in benghazi. just listen to what the president's press secretary jay carney said about that, wolf. >> what is unfortunate here is the continuing attempt t
, john brennan and for defense secretary, chuck hagel unless the president provides more information on the september 2012 attack on our consulate in benghazi, libya. listen to this. >> how could they say after panetta and dempsey said it was a terrorist attack that night, how could the president say for two weeks after the attack it was the result of a video? how could susan rice come on to show to say there is no evidence of a terrorist attack when sick tear of defense and joint chiefs knew that that night? i think that was a misleading narrative three weeks before our election. >> he is hanging onto this in a big way. joining me, kt mcfarland, fox news security analyst . what do you think he is saying, kt? >> what he is talking about is the most significant part. and that is the president had nothing to do with this. that the secretary of defense and the chairman of joint chiefs of staff now said at the beginning of this attack american embassy under attack, american ambassador gone missing they told the president and that was it. the president had nothing more to do with it. mart
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)